State v. Fetters, 270 N.C. 453 (1967)

May 24, 1967 · Supreme Court of North Carolina

270 N.C. 453

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN WILLIAM FETTERS.

(Filed 24 May, 1967.)

Indictment and Warrant § 12—

Where fatal defect in the warrant is corrected prior to delivery to the officer for service, defendant has no ground for objection.

Appeal by defendant John William Fetters from Bailey, J., November 9, 1966 Criminal Session, Cumberland Superior Court.

In this criminal prosecution the defendant was tried in Recorder’s Court of Cumberland County upon a warrant charging the unlawful operation of a motor vehicle upon the highways of North Carolina while his driver's license had been suspended or revoked. The Court returned a verdict of guilty and imposed this judgment: “The defendant is sentenced to serve 6 months in jail to be assigned to work under the supervision of the North Carolina Prison Dept. Sentence to be suspended upon condition def. not operate a motor vehicle on public highway of North Carolina until properly authorized to do so by the North Carolina Motor Vehicle Dept.” The defendant appealed to the Superior Court.

In the Superior Court the defendant entered plea of not guilty to the charge contained in the warrant. The jury returned a verdict of guilty. Judge Bailey imposed a prison sentence of 15 months. The defendant excepted and appealed.

T. W. Bruton, Attorney. General; William W. Melvin, Assistant Attorney General; T. Buie Costen, Staff Attorney, for the State.

.Edward J. David for defendant appellant.

PER Cueiam.

In the Superior Court the defendant contended the warrant as originally issued was fatally defective in that it charged the defendant operated his motor vehicle upon the public highway “after” his license was suspended; that subsequent to the issue and service of the warrant the word “after” was stricken and the word “while” was substituted. The photostatic copy of the warrant shows the substitution. However, Judge Bailey conducted an investigation and found the substitution was made by the issuing officer before delivery for service. Hence, the charge of invalidity is not sustained. In the trial, we find

No error.